Using Social Psychology to Reduce Bias and Conflict

Menu

Conformity and Bias in Sharing Fake News

If nearly everybody believes something, then it must be true. If most of us act the same way, then it must be okay to act that way. Right? No.

These common-sense ways of drawing conclusions about the world are logical fallacies. They go by names such as the bandwagon fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy, or argumentum ad populum. In and of itself, the commonality of a belief does not make it true.

I’m not a historian, but as one example, I’m pretty sure a lot of us believed the earth was the center of the universe for a long time. Until science provided data to the contrary.

Of course sometimes getting on a bandwagon makes sense. Indeed, if nearly every expert in a relevant scientific field believes something (based on research), then it would be logical to believe it (not that science has never gotten anything wrong). Eventually, science does tend to convince the majority of people of big things like the relative location of our planet.

But what if your bandwagon drives the roads only through MSNBC or only Fox News? Or only through certain partisan blogs or rallies? Well now that could be a problem. Of many relevant quotes…

“The prominence of partisan news sources…allows Americans to isolate themselves in echo chambers where they are exposed only to arguments that reinforce their opinions” (Smith & Searles, 2014, p. 72).

It’s called selective exposure and allows us to pad our egos by overestimating the number of others who agree with us, called the false consensus effect (Myers, 2013). Echo chambers give the illusion of (biased) consensus.

Not that MSNBC and Fox News are equivalently biased on every issue. To believe so would be a false equivalence fallacy. And of course even partisan news shows can provide accurate information part of the time.

If we hang with individuals who use the same news sources as we do, then conformity processes can really kick in. We tend to feel validated when we converse with these individuals. We might even become more extreme through processes such as group polarization or groupthink (Myers, 2013).

What about those of us who get a lot of our news from Facebook or other social media? Ding ding ding. Okay now there is definitely a problem. As many reports have noted near and since the 2016 presidential election, fake news stories get electronically shared more often than real news stories (e.g., BuzzFeed News, 2016).

Among many potential reasons for this sharing-fake-news phenomenon are anger (Hasell & Weeks, 2016) and the confirmation bias (Braucher, 2016). When we read something shockingly negative about the candidate whom we already dislike, we’re more likely to believe it, to get angry about it, and to share it, to try to further validate our belief and emotion.

And as more of us share the same fake story, a bandwagon emerges.

Also, if we identify the (fake-)news source as being from our political side (e.g., liberal or conservative), then we are more likely to go along with it. In an article titled “Party Over Policy,” Geoffrey Cohen (2003) showed that people generally favor a position if they think it comes from their own political group, even if (incredibly) it goes against their previous beliefs.

The social-science advice to step back and think for yourself to avoid these conformity-related fallacies has become of paramount importance in American politics. But unfortunately, not all of us are good at thinking for ourselves.

I don’t have a simple set of rules to follow, but for starters…

Try to be open to the possibility that you might sometimes blindly go along with your political group. Most of us see others doing it but not ourselves (Cohen, 2003).

Try to be open to the possibility that some people on the opposing political side are not all bad.

Try to avoid getting all your news from only a few sources (especially if they’re known for being partisan). Give mainstream news media a chance. Most large-scale investigations of the news media overall have shown there’s a lot more balance than most people think (e.g., see BuzzFeed News, 2016, Lee, 2005; Stalder, 2009).

Meaning of “PARBs”

PARBs stands for "Persons At Risk of Bias." PARBs Anonymous is an online support group for those of us who realize our potential biases in how we see ourselves, others, and the world. Despite the benefits of correcting biases, realizing that we are biased and realizing how many biases there are can be depressing. The message of the support group is that you're not alone and you can improve. To err is human.

Over 6 Billion Unofficial Members Worldwide

To err is human. Everybody makes mistakes. You don't have to enroll or participate in this support group to be an unofficial member. We are ALL at risk of bias.

Purposes of this Site

1. Learn about the variety of interpersonal and self biases that you and your friends, coworkers, and family are at risk of committing.
2. Learn about the consequences of bias, including making poor decisions and triggering or exacerbating interpersonal conflicts.
3. Read posts by me and others that show where and how these biases can appear.
4. Learn about ways to reduce biases in yourself and others.
5. Learn about the benefits of reducing bias. Bias reduction can improve interpersonal accuracy, improve decision making, reduce conflicts, and otherwise increase good will toward others.
6. SUBMIT YOUR OWN COMMENTS. Comments can contain stories or thoughts about your own or others' potential biases (though be careful when inferring others' biases; sometimes perceptions of bias can be biased). Comments can respond to posts, respond to other comments,... Please be courteous and diplomatic, avoid profanities, obscenities, etc... (e.g., please no name-calling, which can be a form of the fundamental attribution error). I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO PREVENT/REMOVE COMMENTS WITH PROFANITY, PERSONAL ATTACKS, SPAM, ETC...

Beware Depression

Many biases satisfy human needs to feel in control and to feel good about ourselves. When these needs are not satisfied, depression is more likely. In other words, many biases (in moderation) are mentally healthy ways to be, and moderately depressed individuals tend to be more accurate perceivers than non-depressed individuals (termed "depressive realism"). Thus, do not try to reduce your biases all at once or too quickly, because you might start to feel helpless, insecure, or less positive about yourself, which can contribute to depression. This site will provide tips to minimize the risk of depression while trying to reduce (mentally healthy) biases.